16-35 vs 17-40

[MAT67]

Hello Everyone... Aside from the price, I am trying to decide which lens makes more sense at this point. I currently have a 70-200, 85mm, 100mm macro and my pitiful kit lens--18-55. So the last is the one I am replacing. I want L series, as I plan on upgrading my body in the near future. I need opinions on a good addition to this collection in this range lens. I need more of a landscape or everyday lens at this point. I don't have any wide angle so I definitely need that. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[twistedphrame]

It's not as wide as the 16-35 or the 17-40 but I LOVE my 24-70 f/2.8L, I've never used the other two but I find it always nice to have lenses run into one another (i.e. with lens changes you'll be able to work from 24-200mm) as apposed to having breaks in your range (missing out in 30-35mm on the others).





just something to consider,


~Jordan

[MAT67]

You have me thinking I should consider it as well.. thank you

[twistedphrame]

The 24-70 is my everyday lens and is on my camera 95% of the time, then again I'm generally not shooting stuff from a distance. One thing I've noticed is that (especially indoors) at times I want something a little wider due to the 1.6x crop, that's the only real down side I've had with this lens, it's a bit of a beast at around 2lbs but I grew up cutting firewood and digging holes so the weight doesn't bother me too much though I've heard lots of complaints about that.

[MAT67]

I'm not worried about the weight, my 85mm is very heavy, but it takes a fantastic shot. I am only worried about wide enough because my collection thus far is on the other end of the spectrum. thanks for the advice...

[Daniel Browning]

I wouldn't call your 18-55 pitiful -- it is sharper than the 17-40, despite costing 4 times less, including I.S., and more range. Using the 17-40 on a crop camera will be a downgrade from your existing 18-55 in several ways. It really shines on full frame though. As for the choice between 17-40 and 16-35, it mostly depends on what f-number you need, IMHO. If you'll be doing f/8 on full frame, it doesn't make much sense to shell out for the 16-35. But f/2.8 is very well worth it for low light IMHO.

[MAT67]

Would you consider the 16 a good everyday lens? I am torn, now thinking maybe I need to also consider the 24-70?? So confused!

[peety3]

Would you consider the 16 a good everyday lens? I am torn, now thinking maybe I need to also consider the 24-70?? So confused!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

You mean the 16-35 right? I can see the 16-35 being part of a pair of everyday lenses, if you have a second body where you can bring the 70-200 or some other telephoto, especially with a 50mm handy. I can't see the 16-35 being your primary lens on a single camera setup.

[MAT67]

yes, the 16-35. I think you are right it would have to be paired. I am a single camera outfit though, so I am trying to make that part work.

[Keith B]

I tried to get away with the 16-35 as my everyday walk-a-round but it just can't get in tight when you need it. So I bought the 24-70 and it is on my 5DmkII 75% of the time. In fact my 16-35 is my least used lens now (70-200 2nd most used). I love it and wouldn't part with it but with the 24-70 being so versatile and ridiculously sharp it is the work hors and I now definitely endorse the 24-70 over the 24-105.